dcfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Blue Bulleteer Vol 1 1
"Must be deleted because: no reason given, it's probably just crappy". Thanks. I won't bother to contribute again. Jesus, if you're going to delete someone's work you could at least be diplomatic about it. Tony ingram (talk) 19:16, November 10, 2013 (UTC) :It's the standard text. --[[User:Tupka217|'Tupka']]''217'' 19:19, November 10, 2013 (UTC) ::Ha. Yeah. Nothing personal but that's just what it says when you tag it for deletion. Kyletheobald (talk) 19:24, November 10, 2013 (UTC) It's still not funny. Tony ingram (talk) 19:26, November 10, 2013 (UTC) :It's tagged to be deleted for the same reasons explained on Talk:Blue Bulleteer Vol 2 1. - Hatebunny (talk) 19:41, November 10, 2013 (UTC) Yes, I worked that out, although I still disagree with it, but that's neither here nor there. It was the crass default wording of the delete tag that irritated me. I think sometimes, the desire to keep to strict and somewhat arbitrary rules overrides the human element on here and that annoys me. Whenever someone comes to this site and adds or edits something they are giving up their time and putting in effort, however small, to make what they see as a valid contribution. Nobody's work should be carelessly removed without thought of that. I know one contributor to the Marvel DB who stopped contributing over here because he was told that his edits were "boring and irrelevant". That, to me, should not be acceptable, and neither are thoughtless jokes like that delete tag. I just think that here, and indeed on the Marvel DB which I now rarely go to for similar reasons, the urge to adhere strictly to the self imposed rules has caused it to be forgotten that the whole point of the Wikias in the first place was that people should enjoy working on them. Sorry, I may well be being oversensitive but it got to me, last night. Tony ingram (talk) 07:12, November 11, 2013 (UTC) :I just want to make it clear, I don't take deleting things lightly. If its clear an edit was make with good intent (as opposed to vandalism) and given at least enough time to try to edit out the text talk, I try to bring it up for discussion before deleting it. That said, we are one of the biggest wikias and we need to run a tighter ship on things than we have in the past. We don't want to have pages purely to have pages. There used to be few rules on what could and couldn't be added. Now, we're trying to define and narrow what we focus on that way we're helpful without having to try and always cover things that may or may not be in our domain, so to speak. Sometimes that means old pages get deleted. Its not that we don't appreciate the work put into those pages; its that we feel that info is either no longer necessary or it falls outside our responsibilities. Kyletheobald (talk) 14:11, November 11, 2013 (UTC) Well, maybe, but personally I found this site a far friendlier and more welcoming place when I first joined and the rules seemed looser. And I'd argue that tightening up rules now, while it will obviously have an effect on what can be added these days, should not be considered a valid reason to retroactively purge existing information which was evidently considered valid enough to be left there in the first place. But, it's not my site, and I've very little interest in anything to do with DC since the 2011 reboot so my opinion is probably irrelevant anyway. Tony ingram (talk) 15:34, November 11, 2013 (UTC)